5 years later: checking up on the 2-minute hate at George Will about melting of the polar ice

Summary: The climate wars among the public (laymen) show how poorly we see our world. Here we look at an example displaying many of these problems: the “two minute hates” we substitute for rational debate, how ideology blinds us to the physical world, and our disinterest in the wonderful findings of climate science.

“Some of the models suggest that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next 5 to 7 years.”

Contents

The heretics

What does this mean?

Update: about the 2014-15 season

Research about the arctic ice

Research about the antarctic ice

For More Information

Coal’s contribution to arctic melting

.
(1) The heretics

The same year as Gore made this prediction Michael Asher, (Daily Tech) and George Will (Washington Post) dared to question the Left’s “arctic ice disappearing” narrative – predictions that the arctic would be ice-free soon, continuing the melt since start of satellite data in 1979 (during the 1970s cold snap). This followed the 2007 low in arctic sea ice, and predictions of a “death spiral” and “Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013′”

Asher and Will were met with the Left’s standard “2 minute hate” — smears, mockery, rebuttals to what Asher and Will didn’t say. They did everything but recommend Will and Asher be chopped up and fed to the poor. This is comic opera, not science; of interest as demonstrations why the Left continues to lose influence in US politics.

These fluctuations in sea ice are too brief to tell us anything about climate (both Left and Right trumpet weather as climate when it suits them). But having said that, let’s see what the polar sea ice tells us.

May Arctic Sea Ice extent from the National Snow & Ice Data Center — 2002 to 2014, during the hysteria. No melting (the satellite data from 1979-2001 shows the extent shrinking from almost 20% above the 1981-2010 mean).

National Snow & Ice Data Center

.

Here’s a broader look at this year’s trend vs variability since 1979. So far this year’s seasonal melt lies in the average range.

(2) What does this mean?

Neither of these trends are simple stories of warming — or lack of warming. As usual with climate change, there are many factors at work. The massive increase in funding for the climate sciences has produced a renaissance, still running. Insights on all aspects, not just answers but new questions for research.

Yet these wonders are hidden from Americans, least it spoils the CO2 narrative — focusing the public’s attention to produce the desired political effect. Research about other natural and anthropogenic factors, even pollutants such as soot, are uncovered by the news media.

In the many threads about climate change on the FM website, climate activists usually know little about the new findings of climate science — because they refuse to see them. It’s sad for them. It’s sad for America, since science is one of our few reliable tools to manage the challenges of the coming years.

Report from the Alfred Wegener Institute, 8 June 2012 — “North-East Passage soon free from ice again? Winter measurements show thin sea ice in the Laptev Sea, pointing to early and large scale summer melt. … these clear differences are primarily attributable to the wind.”

(b) Non-technical explanations about the effect of soot on polar ice

We burn coal, especially in places with few pollution control regulations (e.g., China); the soot travels to the arctic and lands on the ice — warming the ice. Also usually ignored as bad for the narrative.

“Through an examination of shallow ice cores covering a wide area of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS), we show that the same mechanism drove two widespread melt events that occurred over 100 years apart, in 1889 and 2012. We found that black carbon from forest fires and rising temperatures combined to cause both of these events, and that continued climate change may result in nearly annual melting of the surface of the GIS by the year 2100.”

The surface energy balance and mass balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet depends on the albedo of snow, which governs the amount of solar energy that is absorbed. The observed decline of Greenland’s albedo over the past decade has been attributed to an enhanced growth of snow grains as a result of atmospheric warming. Satellite observations show that, since 2009, albedo values even in springtime at high elevations have been lower than the 2003–2008 average. Here we show, using a numerical snow model, that the decrease in albedo cannot be attributed solely to grain growth enhancement. Instead, our analysis of remote sensing data indicates that the springtime darkening since 2009 stems from a widespread increase in the amount of light-absorbing impurities in snow, as well as in the atmosphere.

We suggest that the transport of dust from snow-free areas in the Arctic that are experiencing earlier melting of seasonal snow cover as the climate warms may be a contributing source of impurities. In our snow model simulations, a decrease in the albedo of fresh snow by 0.01 leads to a surface mass loss of 27 Gt yr−1, which could induce an acceleration of Greenland’s mass loss twice as large as over the past two decades. Future trends in light-absorbing impurities should therefore be considered in projections of Greenland mass loss.

(5) Research about antarctic sea ice

(a) It’s the winds, which also have a powerful effect on Southern sea ice

“Over the last 24 years, a positive Antarctic oscillation (AAO) trend and a slightly negative ENSO trend produce a spatial pattern of ice changes similar to the regional ice trends. However, the magnitude of the ice changes associated with the AAO and ENSO is much smaller than the regional ice trends.”

A global sea ice–ocean model is used to examine the impact of wind intensification on Antarctic sea ice volume. Based on the NCEP–NCAR reanalysis data, there are increases in surface wind speed (0.13% yr−1) and convergence (0.66% yr−1) over the ice-covered areas of the Southern Ocean during the period 1979–2010. Driven by the intensifying winds, the model simulates an increase in sea ice speed, convergence, and shear deformation rate, which produces an increase in ridge ice production in the Southern Ocean (1.1% yr−1). The increased ridged ice production is mostly in the Weddell, Bellingshausen, Amundsen, and Ross Seas where an increase in wind convergence dominates.

… The increase in thick ice leads to an increase in ice volume in the Southern Ocean, particularly in the southern Weddell Sea where a significant increase in ice concentration is observed.

“By mid-century, however, ozone-hole effects may instead be adding to GHG warming around Antarctica but with diminished amplitude as the ozone hole heals. The Arctic, meanwhile, responding to GHG forcing but in a manner amplified by ocean heat transport, may continue to warm at an accelerating rate.”

“… large areas at the base of Thwaites Glacier are actively melting in response to geothermal flux consistent with rift-associated magma migration and volcanism. This supports the hypothesis that heterogeneous geothermal flux and local magmatic processes could be critical factors in determining the future behavior of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.”

About Gore’s speech about Maslowski’s forecast

“Al Gore’s office issued a formal correction yesterday to a speech the former US Vice-President had given earlier in the week that started the latest in a series of “climate spin” rows. Mr Gore told the Copenhagen summit meeting that the latest research suggested that the North Pole would be ice-free within five to seven years. The Times revealed that this was not the information provided to Mr Gore’s office by the climatologist Wieslaw Maslowski, who works at the US Naval Postgraduate School in California.

Dr Maslowski said that his projections suggested that the North Pole would be near ice-free, but that some ice would remain beyond 2020. He also denied providing the 75% figure used by Mr Gore. “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at, based on the information I provided to Al Gore’s office,” he said.

The clarification said that Mr Gore “misspoke” on the polar ice prediction and that he meant that the cap would be nearly ice-free. Scientists have criticised Mr Gore for basing his talk on unpublished data, rather than relying on the latest peer-reviewed studies.

About Maslowski’s prediction

The prediction was from Maslowski’s “State and Future Projections of Arctic Sea Ice”, presented at the Changes of the Greenland Cryosphere Workshop and the Arctic Freshwater Budget International Symposium held at Nuuk, Greenland on 25-27 August 2009. I see no online copies, open or gated.

One sentence from his paper seems to be all that remains in the public domain: “Autumn could become near ice free between 2011 and 2016.” A bit daft to have an entire debate over one sentence from a paper (Maslowski has said that people misunderstood the context). I wonder how many talking about it have actually read it.

Probably as spam. We take down about 50 per day (I just took out 12). Plus the thousand-plus the software takes out (the bin now has 385 so far today). When you read that most of the traffic on the Internet is spam, they’re not joking.

Was it related to the post? That’s the #1 distinguishing characteristic. Inevitably (but quite rarely) others get swept up

It’s interesting (and uninformative) that you never provide Maslowski’s actual prediction. That Gore somewhat mangled the prediction isn’t that surprising. He got the gist of it correct – the nuances he missed (as have you, apparently).

Maskowski’s actual prediction nearly came true in 2012 – fell just 4% short. While it’s still unlikely to be a correct prediction, if he’d said plus or minus five years instead of three I’d put even money on it.

(1) You do not provide it either. Nor do you appear able to read what I said. Here’s the London Times:

Al Gore’s office issued a formal correction yesterday to a speech the former US Vice-President had given earlier in the week that started the latest in a series of “climate spin” rows. Mr Gore told the Copenhagen summit meeting that the latest research suggested that the North Pole would be ice-free within five to seven years. The Times revealed that this was not the information provided to Mr Gore’s office by the climatologist Wieslaw Maslowski, who works at the US Naval Postgraduate School in California.

Dr Maslowski said that his projections suggested that the North Pole would be near ice-free, but that some ice would remain beyond 2020. He also denied providing the 75% figure used by Mr Gore. “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at, based on the information I provided to Al Gore’s office,” he said.

The clarification said that Mr Gore “misspoke” on the polar ice prediction and that he meant that the cap would be nearly ice-free. Scientists have criticised Mr Gore for basing his talk on unpublished data, rather than relying on the latest peer-reviewed studies.

Also, I refer to Al Gore because the subject of the post is stated in the first sentence: ” The climate wars among the public (laymen) show how poorly we see our world.”

(2) “He {Gore} got the gist of it correct”

The arctic sea ice record minimum was in 2012: aprox 2.24 million sq km (see the data here). To call that “ice free” is quite daft.

(3) “How about you?”

I am neither a meteorologist nor a climate scientist, and don’t make predictions of weather or climate. You are not either, so I don’t care about yours. You are a troll, making stuff up. Good-bye.

About Maslowski’s prediction was from “State and Future Projections of Arctic Sea Ice”, presented at the Changes of the Greenland Cryosphere Workshop and the Arctic Freshwater Budget International Symposium held at Nuuk, Greenland on 25-27 August 2009.

I see no online copies, open or gated. The one sentence quoted from his prediction: “Autumn could become near ice free between 2011 and 2016.” A bit daft to have an entire debate over one sentence from a paper (Maslowski has said that people misunderstood the context), esp when I wonder how many talking about it have actually read it.

The first clue is the graph. Maslowski was talking about volume – not extent. And Maslowski’s definition of ice-free is 80% of the 1979 – 2000 average. Yet in your post you show two sea-ice extent graphs. At minimum in 2012 the ice volume had fallen by 76%. It has increased since then, but it’s not likely we’ll ever see the volume of the 1990s again.

First, the graph Maslowski provides is of volume, so why anyone would assume he’s talking about extent is just wrong.

Second, ice is a 3D object. Exgtent is a 2D metric. Typically if we want to accurately describe a 3D object we include three 2D measurements; height, width, and depth – or a single 3D measurement – typically volume.

(1) We don’t know that graph was Maslowski’s (I expressed that incorrectly in my comment). It includes Maslowski’s projection, or a projection based on his. As I said, the graph was from a DMI brochure. They did not give a cite for the graph; it might be their own work.

Most analysis uses sea ice area and extent as directly measured by satellites, since most of the impacts of sea ice depend on the amount of surface covered — not the volume (volume is useful for forecasting, however). For example, see the main pages of the National Snow Ice Data Center and Cryosphere Today — many graphs of area/extent, none of volume.

(3) Thank you for the quote. That does answer the question, and you were correct about this tiny point.

I will add three points of my own.

(4) From Romm’s 2010 “Arctic Death Spiral“: “’If this trend persists for another 10 years-and it has through 2005-we could be ice free in the summer.’ And that was in 2006, so he was talking about the possibility of being ice free in 2016.”

Maslowski’s forecast about “ice free” by 2016 is almost certainly wrong. The decrease in arctic sea ice has paused, with the trend sideways since roughly 2008. Extent in 2012 was the low (probably due to winds, which have a large effect). The minimums were similar in 2008, 20010, 2011, and 2015 — which were below those of 2009, 2013, and 2014. You can see the data for yourself at the interactive graph on the NSIDC website.

(5) You are still wrong about all your major points, which you probably realize since you have provided no evidence to support them.

(6) You are a troll: “One who posts a deliberately provocative message to an internet discussion with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.” All further comments by you are going to the spam bin. Good-bye.